Home | Community | Message Board


Lil Shop Of Spores
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineLearyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 29,772
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 28 minutes, 53 seconds
9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up
    #4558047 - 08/20/05 09:48 AM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Interesting. This Army intelligence officer named Anthony Shaffer seems to be insinuating that.....Bush knew.

9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up


Quote:

9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up
Intelligence officer goes public in Able Danger expos?

By Patrick Martin
19 August 2005
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

A longtime Army intelligence officer went public with his allegations about a cover-up in the 9/11 investigation, giving an on-the-record interview Monday night to the New York Times and Fox News, and then further interviews Tuesday to other news outlets.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, 42, confirmed that he had been a source for previous reports in the Times and the Norristown Times-Herald, a Philadelphia-area newspaper, about a secret data-mining operation known as Able Danger, which he said had identified Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 suicide hijackers in 2000, more than a year before the terrorist attacks.

Shaffer said that his unit had contacted the FBI repeatedly during 2000 to warn that a US-based terrorist cell was at work, but three times was forced to cancel meetings to brief the FBI at the instruction of the Strategic Operations Command (SOCOM), the Pentagon unit in charge of all counter-terrorism work.

He charged that the information withheld might have made it possible to arrest Atta and other terrorists before they could carry out their plans. ?I was at the point of near insubordination over the fact that this was something important, that this was something that should have been pursued,? Shaffer told the Times. He said the Pentagon officials did not want the information circulated because it would reveal the existence of the secret military intelligence project and lead to criticism that the military was collecting information on the American people.

By his account, Shaffer was not directly involved in data collection or analysis, but served as liaison between Able Danger and the Defense Intelligence Agency, the largest unit of the vast US intelligence apparatus. Defense Department officials did not dispute his version of events, but declined any further comment.

Shaffer said he had decided to allow his name to be made public, in violation of normal security procedures, in response to the statement issued last week by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the chairman and vice-chairman of the 9/11 commission. They declared that the panel knew of Able Danger but had never been informed that the project had identified Atta or others of the hijackers in advance of 9/11.

The 9/11 commission report flatly declared that no US intelligence agency had identified Atta before September 11. Colonel Shaffer directly rebuts this claim, telling the media that he personally provided information about Able Danger, including its identification of Atta, at an October 2003 meeting in Afghanistan, where he was then stationed as a Special Forces officer. Several members of the commission staff were present and received the information, including staff director Philip Zelikow, now the senior counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Shaffer said a follow-up investigation was in order to determine what happened to the information on Able Danger he provided to the commission staff. ?I?m told confidently by the person who did move the material over that the 9/11 commission received two briefcase-sized containers of documents,? he told Fox News. ?I can tell you for a fact, that would not be one-twentieth of the information Able Danger consisted of during the time we spent.?

The 9/11 commission did not even mention Able Danger in its final report because the program ?did not turn out to be historically significant,? Kean and Hamilton said. Shaffer pointed to the absurdity of this claim, since Able Danger was a major initiative by the military to target Al Qaeda, and the 9/11 commission was charged with investigating all such activities and making an assessment of their effectiveness.

?This was a good news story because, before 9/11, you had an element of the military?our unit?which was actually out looking for Al Qaeda,? he said. ?I can?t believe the 9/11 commission would somehow believe that the historical value was not relevant.?

The statements by Shaffer shatter the official story of the September 11 attacks, as devised by the Bush administration, endorsed by the entire Washington political establishment, and parroted obediently by the media. By the official account, Islamic fundamentalist hijackers entered and re-entered the United States repeatedly over a two-year period, made substantial preparations for the terrorist attacks, including obtaining pilot training on US soil, organized themselves to hijack four commercial airliners simultaneously and crash them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, all without any US police or intelligence agency being aware of their activities.

It is now clear that those who have rejected this account?including the World Socialist Web Site?have been proven right. The future hijackers were detected by US government agencies, including the CIA and military intelligence, yet nothing was done either to arrest them or disrupt their operations.

There is only one politically serious explanation of this now-indisputable fact: powerful forces within the US military/intelligence complex wanted a terrorist incident on US soil in order to create the needed shift in public opinion required to embark on a long-planned campaign of military intervention in Central Asia and the Middle East. Whether or not they knew the scale of the impending attacks and what the precise targets would be, they acted in such a way as to block the arrest of known terrorist operatives and allow them to carry out their plot.

Should this understanding begin to penetrate broad layers of working people in the United States, there will be an enormous public reaction against the intelligence services and the entire political establishment, which is complicit, in one way or another, in the cover-up and political exploitation of the events of 9/11. That explains the extraordinary timidity of the media coverage. Both right and ?left? in the official political spectrum are handling the Able Danger revelation like a hand grenade that could go off in their faces.

Liberal publications like the New York Times, despite first bringing the story to wide public attention, have sought subsequently to downplay the revelations. The interview with Lt. Col. Shaffer, who is essentially abandoning his intelligence career by going public, is the kind of ?scoop? that would normally rate banner front-page headlines. Instead, it was on the bottom of an inside page, and a follow-up story the next day was buried even deeper, on page 20.

The representatives of the extreme right?Fox, the Murdoch press, Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk radio hosts, and an array of bloggers?have made more noise about Able Danger, but only in the service of a political diversion.

They have sought to use Shaffer?s account to indict the Clinton administration and shift responsibility for the 9/11 security failure from Bush to his Democratic predecessor. According to them, the decision by the Pentagon not to supply information on the Al Qaeda cell to the FBI, taken in mid-2000 when Clinton was still in the White House, is the product of the so-called ?wall? between intelligence operations and law enforcement allegedly set up in the mid-1990s by Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick?herself later a Democratic member of the 9/11 commission.

This allegation is entirely groundless. The ?wall? never existed in reality, as testimony before the 9/11 commission demonstrated. Information-sharing between intelligence and law enforcement units was routine and continual, except when ?black? operations had to be kept secret to preserve official deniability. If lawyers did cite the ?wall? in relation to Able Danger, this was likely a pretext for a cover-up ordered for entirely different reasons.

To put it mildly, the picture presented of military and intelligence officials hamstrung by lawyers and legalisms is not credible. The $40 billion US intelligence apparatus is the most ruthless and aggressive in the world, engaged in illegal surveillance, kidnapping, torture and murder. If American intelligence kept quiet about Mohammed Atta, it was because higher interests of state required it, not because of any scruples about civil liberties.

The focus on Gorelick and the ?wall? serves three obvious political ends. It reinforces the right-wing campaign to eliminate all legal restraints, no matter how ineffective, on the operations of US intelligence agencies (that appears to be the principal motive of Republican Congressman Curt Weldon, who arranged Shaffer?s initial meetings with the press). It appeals to the anti-Clinton mania of the Republican Party?s far-right base. And it diverts attention from the responsibility of the Bush administration for both the 9/11 security failure and the subsequent cover-up.

It is particularly noteworthy that in the large volume of commentary on Able Danger that has appeared in the ultra-right media, the name Philip Zelikow is nearly absent. (Fox News, for instance, mentions Zelikow exactly once in its coverage.) Yet Zelikow played the principal role in suppressing the revelations about Able Danger and Mohammed Atta. He was present at the briefing by Shaffer in Afghanistan in October 2003, but according to those commission members who have spoken publicly, never told them that the military unit had identified Atta more than a year before the 9/11 attacks.

The reason for silence on Zelikow?s role is not hard to guess: he is now a high-ranking official in the Bush administration, serving as senior counselor to Secretary of State Rice, a longtime friend and associate with whom he co-authored a book. If one recalls the shadow-boxing in the spring of 2004 over whether the Bush administration would permit Rice to testify before the 9/11 commission, it is now clear that the White House agreed to cooperate only because it was assured that in Zelikow, the most important behind-the-scenes operative of the commission, it had a trusted agent in place to manipulate the investigation and prevent any too-damaging exposures.

Shaffer was adamant that he personally informed Zelikow and mentioned Atta by name. ?I kept my talking points,? from the meeting, he said in one press interview, ?and I?m confident about what I said.? The commission staff told him they would follow up their discussion, and the next month they requested documents from the Pentagon on Able Danger, but he was never interviewed again. ?They didn?t follow up jack,? he said. ?That?s when the investigative rigor wasn?t followed.?

That a serving intelligence officer of Shaffer?s rank should come forward publicly is a sign of intense and deepening crisis within the US intelligence apparatus. There is evidently considerable bitterness about the aftermath of the 9/11 debacle. Shaffer noted, ?Guys that had a role in the failure got promoted.? He added, ?They have not changed the way they do business.?

Within military/intelligence circles, the knives are out. Shaffer said that some Pentagon officials are ?trying to go dirty on me right now? for what he told the 9/11 commission and his latest public revelations.

Shaffer?s revelations are only the tip of the iceberg. The 9/11 commission report is now discredited as a bipartisan cover-up, in which Democrats and Republicans joined forced to protect the key institutions of the state. The accounts of 9/11 in the corporate-controlled mass media are little more than successive versions of government press releases, rewritten without even serious effort to maintain a consistent cover-up. The truth about 9/11 requires a genuinely independent investigation which will focus on the role of the US government and the US intelligence apparatus in allowing the attacks to occur.









--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: BLC - I Don't Wanna Go



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: Learyfan]
    #4558239 - 08/20/05 10:56 AM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Expect the following or variants of:
'Moonbat author'
'Shaffer is disgruntled (a pedophile, a publicity seeker, has a political agenda, beats his wife, is writing a book, etc.)'
'Tin foil hat'
'Left wing extremist website'
'Clinton...'
'This has already been settled'

From the neocon worshipers, never expect any direct admission that their deity on earth, GWB may be in the very least incompetent and never expect anything along the nature of 'the buck stops here.' It's always someone else's fault, someone else's responsibility and/or someone else's character that matters.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLearyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 29,772
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 28 minutes, 53 seconds
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4558352 - 08/20/05 11:40 AM (11 years, 3 months ago)

True enough.

Wow, Shaffer tried to warn the government. For some reason, they didn't want to hear it. Hmmm.........






--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: BLC - I Don't Wanna Go



Edited by Learyfan (08/20/05 11:41 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineHagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 9,805
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 1 day, 2 hours
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: Learyfan]
    #4558718 - 08/20/05 01:11 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Let's examine this a little closer.

Shaffer said that his unit had contacted the FBI repeatedly during 2000 to warn that a US-based terrorist cell was at work, but three times was forced to cancel meetings to brief the FBI at the instruction of the Strategic Operations Command (SOCOM), the Pentagon unit in charge of all counter-terrorism work.


They have sought to use Shaffer?s account to indict the Clinton administration and shift responsibility for the 9/11 security failure from Bush to his Democratic predecessor. According to them, the decision by the Pentagon not to supply information on the Al Qaeda cell to the FBI, taken in mid-2000 when Clinton was still in the White House, is the product of the so-called ?wall? between intelligence operations and law enforcement allegedly set up in the mid-1990s by Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick?herself later a Democratic member of the 9/11 commission.This allegation is entirely groundless. The ?wall? never existed in reality, as testimony before the 9/11 commission demonstrated. Information-sharing between intelligence and law enforcement units was routine and continual, except when ?black? operations had to be kept secret to preserve official deniability. If lawyers did cite the ?wall? in relation to Able Danger, this was likely a pretext for a cover-up ordered for entirely different reasons.

If Gorelick wasn't responsible then why:
Quote:

In June 1995, U.S. Attorney for New York's Southern District Mary Jo White warned the Justice Department that Gorelick's prohibition against intelligence sharing would hamper U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," White wrote on June 13, 1995, in a memo reported Friday by the New York Post's Deborah Orin.

"The most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating," advised White, who was then in the midst of prosecuting the 1993 World Trade Center bombers.

According to Orin, however, "White was so upset that she bitterly protested with another memo - a scathing one" - blasting Gorelick's wall of separation.

While the former Clinton official and her fellow 9/11 commissioners have so far declined to make the second memo public, the Post reports that White used it to warn that Gorelick's wall "hindered law enforcement and could cost lives."

The 9/11 Commission omitted any mention of White's scathing second warning to Gorelick from its final report.

"Nor does the report include the transcript of its staff interview with White," the Post said.

The revelation that the 9/11 Commission covered up White's full account comes on the heels of news that Gorelick's wall may have prevented the FBI from learning that lead 9/11 hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi had entered the U.S. and had been identified by military intelligence as terrorist threats a year before the attacks.

On Wednesday, Rep. Curt Weldon, who uncovered the Atta-al-Shehhi revelation, complained: "There was no reason not to share this information with the FBI, except that the firewalls that existed back then were so severe that they wouldn't let these agencies talk to one another."











There have been other news stories that have made a pretty good case that it was in fact Jamie Gorelick who was ultimately responsible for the information not being turned over to the FBI. However, I think it's still debatable so we'll just say it was the Pentagon lawyers who made the decision for simplicities sake.

It is undeniable that Clinton was still president at the time Mr. Shaffer alleges all of this happened. It is furthermore undeniable that as president, Mr. Clinton was Commander in Chief and as such ultimately responsible for the Pentagon. I seem to recall a particular mantra about something happening on someone's watch and that making them responsible.

Does that apply here, or only to Bush?

The 9/11 commission was obviously bullshit and I charge all those resposible, from Zelikow to Gorelick and everyone involved. However if it was intent on determing the failures that lead up to the catastrophe, is it not reasonable that blaim (in whatever amount) would lie with those responsible for not acting appropriately on the attempts by Able Danger to warn the FBI as Mr. Shaffer alleges?


--------------------
I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineHagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 9,805
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 1 day, 2 hours
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4558758 - 08/20/05 01:19 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

From the neocon worshipers, never expect any direct admission that their deity on earth, GWB may be in the very least incompetent and never expect anything along the nature of 'the buck stops here.' It's always someone else's fault, someone else's responsibility and/or someone else's character that matters.




How telling.

Is it your contention then that this should just be absorbed as truth with no debate? That anyone that who questions or refutes it is simply a boot licking neocon who can't think for themselves.

You simply expect to pre-empt (and I thought that was bad) any rebuttal with your seemingly psychic powers of deduction by stating what manners someone might attempt to answer with?

How very open minded of you.


--------------------
I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: HagbardCeline]
    #4558792 - 08/20/05 01:26 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

HagbardCeline said:
Does that apply here, or only to Bush?



Both administrations were asleep at the wheel, it also seems that inaction was deliberate. It appears that there was a willful disregard of information and conscientious personnel by both administrations, why is that?


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: HagbardCeline]
    #4558848 - 08/20/05 01:38 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

HagbardCeline said:
Is it your contention then that this should just be absorbed as truth with no debate?



No at all. I was just listing the kind of responses that we normally see from the apologists for the mishandling of affairs by the Bush administration.

Quote:

That anyone that who questions or refutes it is simply a boot licking neocon who can't think for themselves.



No, it depends upon how it is debated and the questioning is framed. Have you never seen the repeated types of attacks that come from those who think Bush & Co can do no wrong?

Quote:

You simply expect to pre-empt (and I thought that was bad) any rebuttal with your seemingly psychic powers of deduction by stating what manners someone might attempt to answer with?



Not ANY rebuttal, just the type I listed. Psychic power has nothing to do with it, it's based on EXPERIENCE - have you ever watched Fox News? Have you ever seen the debating of some of the less critical members of this board? Of course I was giving a heads up to the kind of irrational rebuttal we see every day from certain people. I welcome rational discussion devoid of character assassinations and the ridiculing of stories based merely upon what web site the poster happens to have cited for the information.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4558908 - 08/20/05 01:59 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

It is unknown whether the 9/11 attacks would have been prevented had Schaffer's information been acted upon and Atta's cell raided. In that sense, the claim the fault for "allowing" 9/11 to occur belongs to the Clinton administration is a dubious one.

However, to blame the Bush administration for any lapse in the information unearthed by the Able Danger group making its way to the people in a position to act on it is of course absurd. Schaffer had given up in his attempts long before Bush was elected. How could Bush or any member of his cabinet even be aware Schaffer had ever made those attempts?



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineProsgeopax
Jaded, yethopeful?

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 1,258
Loc: Appearing at a mall near ...
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: Phred]
    #4559231 - 08/20/05 03:21 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

I concede that it's possible that such intelligence information available during the Clinton administration was unavailable to the Bush administration. But it's not likely. It is a PRIMARY responsibility of the executive branch personnel (including the President and relevant cabinet members) to make themselves aware of dangers to the country and people living in it. The president is after all, The Commander-in-Chief. What is fascinating is that both Democratic and Republican administrations appear to engage in willful ignorance on matters of national security intelligence, selecting to concentrate not on what's good for the country but what is good for the rulers and their partisan objectives. This is grist for conspiracy mills and the cause of angst among those who perceive a government out of touch with it's duty and more concerned with it's power.


--------------------
Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes.

You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way.
- Tom Willhite

Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4559379 - 08/20/05 04:02 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I concede that it's possible that such intelligence information available during the Clinton administration was unavailable to the Bush administration. But it's not likely.




Not likely? Here I must disagree. I've been following the unraveling of the Able Danger story for weeks now. The circumstances of this specific lapse of intelligence co-ordination is quite clearly such that there is no way the Bush administration could have unearthed its existence. What were they supposed to do? Tell every department head "Oh, by the way... we want you to double check every report dismissed by your analysts over the last eight years because we think Clinton's gang was incompetent" ?

The whole point of this story is that the information never made it's way to even the Clinton administration. It got derailed before it made it that far.

Even though I personally don't believe it correct to hold the Clinton administration at fault for the 9/11 attacks, it is indisputable that it was Clinton's administration which bears the responsibility for the gutting of both the intelligence community and the military after the fall of the ex-USSR. Not that I mightn't have done the same in Clinton's shoes -- it made sense at the time to reduce that kind of overhead given the end of the Cold War. To be honest, if I had been president I would probably have gone even further. I would certainly have closed overseas bases in Europe, for example.

This is nothing more than an illustration of the fact that governments are not omniscient. Given what we know today, could certain actions have been taken back in 1996 or 1998 or 2000 or whenever that would have prevented the 9/11 attacks from happening? Certainly. But this doesn't necessarily prove the American government in place at the time was negligent.



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: Prosgeopax]
    #4559476 - 08/20/05 04:25 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

I am going to completely avoid any discussion of whose justice department or whose intelligence agencies fucked up or whose blowjob fixation prevented whom from doing the proper job. What I will address here is that there certainly appears to be a Clintonite coverup going on. This began with Sandy Burglar stealing and destroying irreplaceable documents. Then we move on to the appointment of Jamie Gorelick to investigate herself. Now we find that some of the "investigators" received information not once but twice from Pentagon intelligence that they were prevented from sharing specific information with domestic agencies that could actually act because of policies enacted by one of the "investigators" and this is ignored in the report. Any argument that it was DOD lawyers who squelched the info sharing and not Reno's DOJ is specious. Why? Because the job Gorelick held before being promoted to assistant attorney general was DOD chief counsel. The DOD lawyers knew the policy that Gorelick enacted and were guided by it.

Let's not forget, it wasn't the Watergate burglary that brought Nixon down, it was the coverup. If it turns out that Gorelick and/or other staffers or commissioners conspired (with or without Sandy Burglar) to keep this information out of the report they should be arrested and tried for conspiracy to impede a federal investigation. That's what put Martha Stewart in jail. And Haldeman and Ehrlichman. Don't forget Sandy Burglar hasn't been sentenced yet and if he didn't tell the truth in his allocution then his plea deal is out the window.

Oh, this could be great fun, Hilary's friends duckwalked up the courtroom steps.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLe_Canard
Danger Man

Registered: 05/17/03
Posts: 93,272
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4559584 - 08/20/05 04:52 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

I heard Clinton also shot Lincoln and Kennedy, and was behind the GTA Hot Coffee mod.... :shiftyeyes:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: Le_Canard]
    #4559598 - 08/20/05 04:55 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

NOT THE GTA TOO?????? OH MY, GOD HE'S CTHULHU!!!!!


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleLe_Canard
Danger Man

Registered: 05/17/03
Posts: 93,272
Loc: Earthfarm 1 Flag
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4559635 - 08/20/05 05:04 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

It's true! He did it to piss off Hilary....


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJ4S0N
human
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/29/04
Posts: 284
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: Learyfan]
    #4559637 - 08/20/05 05:05 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Another thing about Atta was the lie that he was a Islamic fundamentalist. I've seen lots of information which shows the opposite is true however.. for instance his love for prostitutes and strip bars. Why would someone go on a suicide mission for a religion they don't really follow?


--------------------
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: Le_Canard]
    #4559696 - 08/20/05 05:20 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

ToiletDuk said:
It's true! He did it to piss off Hilary....




If I was married to that beast that would be my guide for behaviour too. WWHH (What Would Hilary Hate)


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: Phred]
    #4559910 - 08/20/05 06:49 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

Oops. Within hours of posting my last, I come across this!

*Dopeslaps self*

Seems I may have been a bit naive when it comes to giving the Clinton administration a pass on this. This links to correspondence from an intelligence contractor whose experience spanned several intelligence agencies, from the Reagan era to post 9/11.

Note that this is from a single anonymous source, so the usual precautions about drawing firm conclusions apply. But after reading it through twice, to me it has the ring of authenticity. It dovetails pretty closely with what other commentators have reported. Check it for yourselves. Definitely worth the read!

"Al Qaeda Brought the Matches" http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005270.php


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: Phred]
    #4560258 - 08/20/05 08:38 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

I can only shake my head in disbelief at such idiotic and obstinate bureaucracy.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 7 days
Re: 9/11 commission told of Atta cover-up [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #4560380 - 08/20/05 09:17 PM (11 years, 3 months ago)

I refuse to grant Jamie Gorelick the cover of being in the bureaucracy. She was a policy maker, not follower. And I continue to stress that the bigger issue here is the sabotage of a most serious investigation that she should have been in front of and not behind. That and Burglar's stuffed socks.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Amazon Shop for: Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble - Part 1: The 9-11 Commission usefulidiot 821 4 12/18/04 01:43 PM
by usefulidiot
* Whistleblower Explodes 9-11 Commission Report SquattingMarmot 477 2 08/05/04 11:25 AM
by Learyfan
* 9/11 "black box" cover-up at Ground Zero? ekomstop 478 3 10/28/04 03:25 PM
by st0nedphucker
* McCain: Bush 'Stonewalling' 9/11 Commission Learyfan 784 13 07/11/03 12:03 PM
by Learyfan
* The 9-11 Commission Charade Ancalagon 423 1 08/25/04 12:20 PM
by CJay
* 9/11 Commission Chief Condemns CIA's Destruction Of Interrogation Tapes exclusive58 268 3 12/23/07 06:58 AM
by kotik
* Ron Paul to Giuliani: Read a book (9/11 commission report) johnm214 554 5 10/18/07 08:57 PM
by nakors_junk_bag
* No "Real" questions asked by 9/11 Commission Swami 729 14 04/09/04 06:27 PM
by infidelGOD

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,796 topic views. 2 members, 1 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Kraken Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.152 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 14 queries.